Keep dialogues going on SCS maritime row

Increasingly the maritime claim disputes in the South China Sea – involving China (which claims almost the entire sea), and the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Brunei (which claim various parts) – is turning into a military confrontation between China and the United States.

While avowing neutrality in the conflict, the US asserts its right to “freedom of navigation” (by both commercial and military ships) in this vital trade sealane. And lately, it surprisingly invoked its security treaty commitment to the Philippines, the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951.

 To recall: In 2012, after Chinese coast guard vessels drove away Filipino fishing boats and occupied the perimeters of the Panatag/Scarborough shoals, the P-Noy government called on America’s military help, precisely by invoking the Mutual Defense Treaty. Hillary Clinton (then US secretary of state), then later President Obama himself, declared that the MDT didn’t cover the Panatag/ Scarborough shoals and certain areas in the Spratlys claimed by the Philippines. Obama went further to make a distinction between the MDT and the US’ parallel treaty with Japan, pointing out the latter accord covers the Sensaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea – also persistently claimed by China – because Japan has exercised authority over them as part of its territory after the settlement of World War II. 

Today America and China are the world’s two largest economies. Probably within a decade they will become the world’s strongest military powers. China naturally now claims primacy as the Asia-Pacific regional power, but the US asserts its claim as both the region’s and the world’s military power.

It will be to the best interest of the world’s people – and to the peoples of China and the US – that the fast-escalating military contention does not lead to war.

Such a war can be devastating for us Filipinos. Under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement – unless it is revoked as an executive agreement by the incoming Duterte administration –US military forces can wage attacks on China from the Philippine military bases and other strategic locations to which they have been given free access and use. Inversely, China can launch missile attacks on US forces in these Philippine locations.

Via bilateral or multilateral dialogue and the full range of options available, diplomacy as the prescription for maintaining peace and avoiding war must be relentlessly pursued.

Between China and the US, there are two high-level security dialogues in which they have been prime participants. One is the bilateral Strategic and Economic Dialogue (billed as S&ED) that began in 2009 between Presidents Hu Jintao and Barack Obama. The talks are held annually, alternately in China and in the US. This year’s meeting, held in Beijing just this week, was the eighth.

The other one is the multilateral Asian Security Summit, or the Shangri-la Dialogue, held yearly in Singapore since 2002; China began sending a high-level delegation since 2007. The 15th forum was held last June 3-4, reportedly attended by some 20 defense ministers.

By its nature – as a forum among key defense and military officials from Asia-Pacific states and others invited by the British International Institute for Strategic Studies (the forum organizer) – the Shangri-la Dialogue has attracted wide international media coverage, particularly since the SCS maritime claims dispute heated up.

In contrast, media coverage of the closed-door meetings of the S&ED has been relatively subdued, even as the topics discussed have encompassed a broader spectrum of “political, strategic, security, and economic issues” in their bilateral, regional, and global contexts.

The recent 15th Shangri-la Dialogue became a platform for China and the US to amplify mutual accusations of military “provocations” in the South China Sea. China has accused the US of undertaking “maritime patrols” using giant warships too close to the artificial islands it has built in the Spratlys and claims as part of its territory, which the US and the other claimant-states refuse to accept.

For its part, the US has claimed Chinese fighter jets carried out an “unsafe” intercept of an American spy plane on “routine” patrol over the East China Sea. John Kerry, US state secretary, has warned against China’s establishment of an air defense identification zone over the SCS, as it has done in the East China Sea. That, he said, the US would consider as a “provocative and destabilizing act.”

China has also issued truculent statements over the impending decision by the Permanent Arbitration Tribunal on the Philippine petition questioning the legality of its claim. The ruling is generally expected to favor the Philippines. But China has repeatedly declared it will not accept the ruling, asserting it will only engage in bilateral negotiations to resolve disputes with each of the claimant states.

Thus there’s need to tone down the truculent rhetoric on both sides of the dialogue (actually a debate) and channel the succeeding discussions to Shangri-la’s avowed objective: “to engender a sense of community among the most important policy makers in the defense and security establishments of the regional states and major powers with significant stakes in Asia-Pacific security.”

More important, top Chinese and US leaders must push forward what they jointly claim their 8th S&ED meeting has achieved: that they ”…narrowed the differences between the world’s two biggest economies and reduced the risk of miscalculations.” Also, China must stick to, and the US concur with, its head delegate’s opening statement:

“The whole world is watching China and the United States, how we handle our bilateral relations, and whether we can demonstrate strong leadership for world peace, stability and prosperity. We need to be good listeners, try to think from the other side’s perspective, respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, properly handle sensitive issues…[so that] misperceptions and disagreements can be resolved.”

* * *

Email: [email protected]